The shadow side of occupational therapy: Necropower, state racism and colonialism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Global North, advances in occupational therapy benefitted unduly from the oppression, disablement and suffering of thousands of people in the South (and beyond). To prevent the recurrence of these injustices, history must be unveiled and occupational therapists urged to come to terms with their own involvement and responsibility. OBJECTIVE AND METHOD: , this academic essay blends select historical and philosophical perspectives to explore occupational therapy's concealed role in manifestations of institutionalised violence. RESULTS: By examining its roles in World War II and France's colonisation of Algeria, we make visible the development of occupational therapy's distinct 'shadow side'. In Nazi Germany's Euthanasia Programme, it became a tool for identifying which lives were deemed 'worthy of living' and which were not, which indirectly contributed to the killing of 200,000 disabled persons. Under France's colonial medical system, occupational therapy imposed Western standards that alienated and completely depersonalised Algerian patients. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: Entrenched in a (bio)economy that has endured beyond these events, occupational therapists must exercise vigilance, remaining mindful of the potential to unintentionally overlook individuals labelled as 'unproductive'. This requires confronting the profession's assumptions of inherent 'goodness' and acknowledging and addressing its shadow side.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".